dasgal said:It did not have enough discernable points. After exhumating both children and removing their hands, it was determined that it was UNLIKELY that the prints belonged to the boys. However, you must also remember that the boys had been removed from a flooded coffin, several years after their murders. Furthermore, people who had been paid by the defense had to rehydrate their fingers to even get a print to begin with. These "experts" then made a determination. I may have missed it, but as I understand it, the documentation of this "scientific process" was never released.
Another defense paid "expert" said that it belonged to a juvenile or young woman, but again, not enough discerable points to make a ruling.
I think from Jantz's report we can fairly confidently say that the print doesn't appear to have belonged to either of the boys (not only on the basis of the whorl patterns and on ridge and detail comparison between it and the two boys but on comparison between a large sample group of children).
What is interesting about Jantz's report, however, is that
a) the result was that it was twice as likely to have belonged to an adult female than an adult male (which is when Jeff suddenly started saying that an adolescent/teen male had done it)
b) whilst he compared the details/stats of Damon and Devon's print with the blood print he doesn't appear to have done the same with Darlie's print- which begs the question of why the defense didn't jump at the opportunity to exhonerate her by doing so.
Which defense expert said it belonged to a juvenile or young woman?? I know the State's expert (Wertheim) cannot rule out Darlie's ring finger but I thought either one or two experts were hired by the defense and claim that it isn't Darlie's? ( Edit: Just checked and Lohnes compared the bloody print on the table to Darlie's and said it wasn't hers... so there was only one defense expert that has ruled Darlie out)